§ 7. "Action in the Line of Greatest Resistance" — Some volitions take place and are maintained only by an effort. This is especially the case when voluntary decision follows some general principle of conduct or some ideal aim, in opposition to an intense impulse of the present Self which is excited and maintained by the actual conditions existing at the time. Professor James has laid great emphasis on this experience. "We feel, in all hard cases of volition, as if the line taken, when the rarer and more ideal motives prevail, were the line of greater resistance, and as if the line of coarser motivation were the more pervious and easy one, even at the very moment when we refuse to follow it. He who under the surgeon's knife represses cries of pain, or he who exposes himself to social obloquy for duty's sake, feels as if he were following the line of greatest temporary resistance. He speaks of conquering and overcoming his impulses and temptations. But the sluggard, the drunkard, the coward, never talk of their conduct in that way or say they resist their energy, overcome their sobriety, conquer their courage, and so forth."*

* Principles of Psychology, vol. ii., p. 548.

There can be no doubt that Professor James here describes the facts accurately. But he proceeds to interpret them as evidence in favour of the libertarian view. If volition is merely the outcome of preceding psychological conditions, it must follow the line of least resistance, but in the cases described it follows the line of the greatest resistance. This would seem to imply the intervention of a new factor. Before admitting this conclusion, we must analyse more carefully the experience on which it is based.

We said in § 4 (Voluntary Decision) that when a voluntary decision was once formed, "opposing cognitive tendencies either cease to operate, or they appear only as difficulties or obstacles in the way of carrying out our decision."* The disappearance of opposing tendencies, on the one hand, or their persistence as obstacles, on the other, are the two alternatives which correspond to action in the line of least resistance and in the line of greatest resistance. Now whether they persist or disappear, depends upon the presence or absence of circumstances over which we have no control. The simplest case is that in which we voluntarily decide in opposition to some present organic craving, such as the craving for drink. The craving itself is maintained by organic conditions which continue to operate both in the very moment of decision and after the decision is made. Thus, to use the phraseology of Professor James, the volition is "hard" because it is both formed and carried out against a persistent obstacle. On the other hand, if the decision is in favour of indulging the animal appetite, counter motives tend to disappear altogether, instead of persisting as obstacles. They are not maintained by organic conditions, nor are they obtruded on the mind by any other circumstances. As soon as the man has given way to temptation and begins to drink, he loses sight of the considerations which had previously tended to restrain him. Besides this, the drink itself, if he takes enough of it, soon obliterates any lingering traces of reluctance. Thus in resolving to drink the man certainly decides in the direction of least resistance; indeed, there may be virtually no resistance at all. On the other hand, in deciding to restrain his appetite, he decides in the direction of greatest resistance, because the appetite itself still persists after his decision.

The case is not essentially dissimilar when the persistence of motives as obstacles is due to other circumstances. The interests opposed to the course of action adopted may be so complex, they may play such a large part in our life, that they continue to obtrude themselves upon us even when we are deciding or have decided that their realisation is not to be identified with our conception of the future Self. They thus persist as obstacles in the moment of resolution, and after resolution. Regulus, in determining to return to Carthage, could hardly dismiss from his thoughts all that he was giving up and the violent death which awaited him. Perhaps if he had decided to remain at Rome, his mental conflict would have been much less acute. Surrounded by family and friends, and with all kinds of congenial channels open for his activity, he would probably have been able to a large extent to avoid dwelling on the thought of his violated promise.

If this analysis be correct, cases of "hard" volition do not show that in the process which leads up to a decision, the weaker motives triumph. We must carefully separate two questions. The first is, How does the voluntary decision issue out of the previous process of deliberation? The other is, How far do opposing tendencies become inoperative when the voluntary decision is made? In proportion as they remain operative, they constitute obstacles and render volition "hard." But this has nothing to do with the psychological conditions which determine the volition. It in no way proves that these conditions are not adequate, and that a new factor such as the libertarians assume is required to account for the result.